Court rejects re-trial in drive-by shooting

A re-trial was ruled out Tuesday in Lenawee County Circuit Court for three men convicted of a drive-by shooting that took the life of a 20-year-old Adrian man in 2002.

Attorneys for the three argued at a hearing Tuesday that electronic stun devices strapped to the defendants' legs denied them constitutional rights to a fair trial. Twin brothers Peter Lamont and Paul Edward Daniel, 46, and Leonard Dee McGlown, 46, all of Macomb County, claimed they were unable to concentrate and freely talk with their attorneys during their joint trial in 2011 because they feared being shocked by officers holding remote controls for the security devices.

They were accused of firing a volley of shots into a stopped car that killed Marcus Newsom the night of Feb. 9, 2002. He was reportedly mistaken for a Detroit man involved in a feud with the Daniel family.

Attorneys handling the appeals also asked Tuesday that jurors from the trial be brought into court and questioned. Attorney Michael Skinner of Lake Orion said questioning the jurors is the only sure way of finding out if they saw the security devices and whether it influenced their verdicts.

"They are the people who will tell us instead of all this mind reading," Skinner argued. "We're treating the jurors with kid gloves because no one wants to call the jurors in."

Judge Margaret M.S. Noe said the defense did not establish a reasonable suspicion that jurors were prejudiced by the devices banded to the defendants' legs beneath their pants.

"There is no evidence the jury saw or was influenced by the banded devices," Noe said.

"I also believe that bringing jurors in to offer testimony on the visibility of the banded devices without more sound suspicion that they saw the devices and may or may not have been influenced in their deliberations, seems harsh," Noe said.

Requiring jurors to later become witnesses in an appeal of their verdicts goes beyond their duty to serve on a jury, Noe said.

Attorneys for the Daniel brothers then argued there was no reason to require them to wear the devices.

Before the trial, Paul Daniel had been a model prisoner with no misconduct on his record, said his attorney, Susan Meinberg of Detroit.

Skinner argued that state law requires a security risk related to the trial to justify use of restraints.

"The bottom line is that the defendants were not prejudiced," said Assistant Lenawee County Prosecutor Jonathan Poer. Courtroom videos show the defendants all actively involved with their attorneys throughout the three-week, he said.

The security devices were justified, Poer argued.

"There are unique circumstances in this case," he said. Those circumstances created security risks for everyone in the courtroom, he said.

Noe agreed in issuing a ruling from the bench.

"There was nothing standard practice about this matter," Noe said.

There were three defendants facing first-degree murder charges and a gallery crowded with family members and friends of the defendants and of the victim, she said.

McGlown had a history of behavior problems in jail in the year preceding the trial, she said. And his defense was antagonistic of the Daniel brothers.

"The defendants were not denied due process of their constitutional rights or to counsel during trial," Noe stated.

The devices were used to maintain orderly and fair procedures, she said, not to punish or harm the defendants. The concealed devices even allowed the three defendants to leave the court building and watch jurors inspect vehicles in the parking lot without excessive visible security, she said.

"The presumption of innocence remained intact," Noe said. "The dignity of the proceeding remained intact."

Even if some jurors had seen the strap device beneath a pant leg of a defendant, she said, they would not have known it was a security device rather than a medical device or support wrap.

"The court finds that use of the device was justified and necessary," Noe said.

A challenge to use of the security device is to be returned now to the Michigan Court of Appeals for a decision. A Court of Appeals panel last fall ordered an evidentiary hearing in circuit court on the use of the device before it takes up a review of the issue.